Talk:Aerodynamic Coefficient
Suggestions for this page: make the image of coefficients larger... it is barely readable. Also include some information on what determines the coefficients, i.e. how do they vary? And discuss what "good" values are for each one. --Matt Daskilewicz 21:18, September 28, 2009 (UTC) Suggestions Include your name with a link to your profile site at the top of the page Please provide some introduction before jumping into the history. Start before the first Subheading with some info on what you're going to talk about and why. Perhaps your "Aerodynamic Coefficients in General" section would be well suited for most of this. "They bring all planes into the same arena..." is not an acceptable description You can not just create links to imaginary pages. Though it is okay for links to not be able to work to connect to the internal site pages, they need to be topics that are covered. The article doesn't have a good flow of information. There should be an introduction and then some history, why they are important, and then a section on how they are calculated. The common coefficients image is of poor resolution and it is not labeled. The lift curve image is also not labeled nor has a source. It also does not have a descriptive title. Contrary to previous postings, the references are not cited correctly according to wiki standards. Hyperlink/numerical citations are to be used not the author name, especially since you have two books by the same author and do not differentiate between the two in the internal citations. --Bsforzo 18:58, October 1, 2009 (UTC) :It is perfectly ok and encouraged to create links to pages that do not currently exist or are not assigned. However, you must pick good names. Reynolds Number was an assigned topic, but "Reynolds" and "Mach" would never be pages on their own. Just like there would never be a page titled "Beta" (it would be labeled "Sideslip Angle"). If you are going to link to Dimensional Analysis, you may as well just link to Buckingham Pi Theorem (which is an assigned topic)--Wengler 20:14, October 1, 2009 (UTC) *As mentioned in the paragraph above, use better link names. *Be sure you include categories, as described in the tutorial *You can't use last name citations if you have two sources from the same author. As it is now, it seems that you have two references that you used, which is unacceptable. *The picture of common coefficients is illegible. Each of those aerodynamic coefficients deserves a section of discussion. The point of assigning "Aerodynamic Coefficient" and not "CL" is that not each coefficient merits an entire article, but picking the most important of them certainly does. Each coefficient should also have typical ranges and how they impact aircraft design *You can either spell out alpha and beta or you can use the Greek letters. Whichever you pick, be consistent. *Aerodynamic coefficients are a major part of aerospace engineering practice, especially for performance and aerodynamics. This page should reflect upon that in its scope. *Remember that this is a design course and the pages are within an aircraft design scope. You need to discuss the implications of the various coefficients on design. *The aerodynamic coefficients are functions of LOTS more than just angle of attack, sideslip angle, Mach and Reynolds numbers. In fact, most people would probably say that they aren't function of Mach and Reynolds numbers at all since they are all dependent on velocity, density and other fluid and flow properties. --Wengler 20:32, October 1, 2009 (UTC) Jonathan Herault's review: As Bsforzo said, you need to put your name and with an internal link. I would stress on the need to put either a bigger picture with the equations, it's unreadable, or better, re-write them using the equation tool. Don't forget to also label your pics and specify the license. Moreover: *You have to use correct in-line citations, with automatic references section.Explained here *For internal links, you should use proper page names! For example the page about non dimensional numbers is labeled Buckingham-Pi theorem. The same goes for Dimensional analysis. *"Using the aerodynamic coefficients, efficiencies can quickly be compared." This idea deserves a better deepening, as it answers as well to the main question Why do we use them. Maybe you should give an example. I found your example "So a large plane might have more lift than a small plane but have a smaller lift coefficient" is a bit naïve. Also, as Bsforzo said,"They bring planes to the same arena" is not very rigorous. You should instead talk about on non-dimensional numbers, and discuss why they are preferably used (you start to do it in the "Formulation of aerodynamic coefficients"). *Starting with a general definition for aerodynamic coefficients is a good way to begin your article, but why do you introduce CL and Cl there? I would move theses to another paragraph dealing with examples. To my mind, there you should only talk about generalities about aero. coefs. and mention that they are in use for a wide variety of bodies (wings, tails, rockets, aircrafts...). Moreover it creates a notation conflict with CL for a wing and CL for an aircraft. --Jherault3 21:02, October 1, 2009 (UTC) Also, don't capitalize words midsentence just because they are important. --Matt Daskilewicz Very nicely written article with the following problems: ** the formulas are barely legible. ** there couple of typos and grammatical mistakes. ** i'm just a bit curious about the way you did your citation. is it a recognized way of citing in this way (author's name and then putting page number) ? i've read a couple of journal papers and wiki sites, never saw this style. rather it's standard practice to put the no. of the reference like 1. having a authors name and page no. makes it very handy to find the information though. ** no use of inline citation. ** figure not labeled. ** no physical implication of the coefficients. ** no proper explanation or example of the usefulness of using these non-dimensional coefficients. ** is it appropriate to use Alpha and Beta at links ? arent they just greek letters, indicating some physical parameters ? in my opinion you should have named that physical parameter as links. ** no categorization--Fahmed7 05:21, October 23, 2009 (UTC) It doesn't seem that you made changes to any of the suggestions posted since the last review. So, in addition to the above posts, the only thing I could think of is: *if you're using a main heading for common aerodynamic coefficients, use some writing to explain it rather than just throwing them in there. This was a good article, but had you made the corrections, it could have been a much better. --Jason Corman